@Huo: Yes, so the fact that 20 were ack'ed in spouts 1, 2 and 3, should
mean that the emits should have also been shown as 20. But the emits are
being shown as 0.
One person says only 5% of data is shown by the UI:
http://stackoverflow.com/a/36204192/453673
But still, it is a bit odd that the emits didn't show up. btw, the second
time the spout emits via allGrouping, it does so in a separate stream.

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:31 AM, Hao Wang <[email protected]> wrote:

> It only displays numbers reached 20 at least, and increased per 20.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Hao Wang* | Head, Software R&D Dept, 3M Cogent Beijing
> Traffic Safety and Security Division
> Suite 708, Ideal Plaza, No.58, West Road North 4th Ring rd, Haidian
> District | Beijing, 100080
> Office: +86 (10) 82551288-5131 | FAX: +86 (10) 82551289
> * [email protected] <[email protected]>* |
> www.3M.com/IdentityManagement <http://www.3m.com/>
>
>
>
> *From:* Navin Ipe [mailto:[email protected]]
> *Sent:* 2016年5月31日 20:03
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Common for storm UI to not show emits?
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Screenshot:
>
>
> ​I confirmed from the logs that all spouts were emitting and ack'ing.
> Strangely, the UI doesn't show it. *Moreover, Spout 1, 2 and 3 show no
> emissions but there are ack's. Is it common for Storm to show results like
> this?*
>
> Here, 10 spouts emit to a bolt (which run as 4 tasks) via fieldsGrouping.
> The bolt ack's. After each spout receives 20 ack's from the bolt, the spout
> emits to the bolt again using allGrouping.
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Navin
>
>
>
>
>
> 3M security scanners have not detected any malicious content in this message.
> Click here 
> <https://spam.mmm.com:443/pem/pages/digestProcess/digestProcess.jsf?content=aedaaa864ecbae9425bd9f0fec3cc4baa0959ae20523b741424af0ff6ccdc730c6c4ff5fb22097b592aab29dac82584fe2bc968480472c3eaabba21033a097db11a5bbae84d10e1a556545982ab95098bea2122fdc521a91c1dce4ef9255fbd0412876d25c0b9f9fcc7f23363904a84a672a7c8cec8e8b690588a0338b0f59c59e2c19dcd14a0779>
>  to report this email as spam
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Regards,
Navin

Reply via email to